Appeal No. 1997-2896
Application 08/340,561
We next turn to the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as being unpatentable over Memarzadeh. On page 8 of the
brief, Appellants reiterate the arguments that Memarzadeh does
not teach displaying each line segment such that adjacent
lines overlap by one pixel. On pages 5 and 6 of the brief,
Appellants provide a marked up copy of Memarzadeh’s figure 3C.
Through this figure and the accompanying description,
Appellants assert that the method of Memarzadeh does not
display line segments such that the ends of adjacent line
segments overlap.
On page 4 of the answer, the Examiner asserts that
Memarzadeh teaches that the line segments overlap. The
Examiner points to figure 3A, column 8, row 4 to depict
overlap. Further, on pages 10 and 11 of the answer, the
Examiner also provides a marked up copy of Memarzadeh’s figure
3C, in which the Examiner points to locations in the figure
where the line segments overlap by one pixel.
We find that the scope of claim 2 includes displaying
line segments representing the path of the stylus. Further,
we interpret the limitation “displaying each of the line
segments on the display such that the ends of adjacent line
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007